Objectives: A wide range of compounds are utilized in dentistry such as dental composites, resins and implants. The successful clinical use of dental materials rely on their physiochemical properties as well as biological and toxicological reliability. Different local and systemic toxicities of dental materials have been reported. Placement of these materials in oral cavity for a long time period might yield in unwanted reactions. An extensive variety of materials is used in dentistry including filling materials, restorative materials, intracanal medicines, prosthetic materials, different types of implants, liners and irrigants. The increasing rate in development of the novel materials with applications in the dental field has led to an increased consciousness of the biological risks and tempting restrictions of these materials. The biocompatibility of a biomaterial used for the replacement or filling of biological tissue like teeth always had a high concern within the health care disciplines for patients. Materials and Methods: Any material used in humans should be tested before clinical application. There are many tests evaluating biocompatibility of these materials at the point of in vitro, in vivo and clinical investigations. Results: The current review discusses the potential toxicity of dental material and screening of their biocompatibility. Clinical Relevance: It is essential to use healthy and safe materials medical approaches. In dentistry, application of different material in long-term oral usage demands low or non-toxic agents gains importance for both patients and the staff. Furthermore, screening tests should evaluate any potential toxicity before clinical application.

No abstract

Purpose To evaluate the chemical composition, flexural strength, and Weibull characteristics of milled and lithography‐based additively manufactured (AM) zirconia. Materials and methods A virtual design of a bar (25×4×2 mm) was completed using a software program. The standard tessellation language file was used to manufacture all the specimens: 3Y‐TZP zirconia (Priti multidisc ZrO2 monochrome) milled (M group) and 3Y‐TZP zirconia (LithaCon 3Y 210) lithography‐based AM (CeraFab System S65 Medical) (AM group) bar specimens (n = 20). The chemical composition of the specimens was determined by using energy dispersive X‐ray (EDAX) elemental analysis in a scanning electron microscope. Flexural strength was measured in all specimens using 3‐point bend test according to ISO/CD 6872.2 with a universal testing machine (Instron Model 8501). Two‐parameter Weibull distribution values were calculated. The Shapiro‐Wilk test revealed that the data were normally distributed (p < 0.05). Flexural strength values were analyzed using independent Student's t‐test (α = 0.05). Results There were no major chemical composition differences observed between M and AM groups. The AM specimens (1518.9 ± 253.9 MPa) exhibited a significantly higher flexural strength mean value compared to the milled (980.5 ± 130.3 MPa) specimens (DF = 13, T‐value = –5.97, p < 0.001). The Weibull distribution presented the highest shape for M specimens (11.49) compared to those of AM specimens (6.95). Conclusions There was no significant difference in the chemical composition of milled and AM zirconia material tested. AM zirconia tested exhibited significantly higher flexural strength compared with the milled zirconia evaluated.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials regarding their biologic, technical and esthetical outcomes. PICOS search strategy was applied using MEDLINE and were searched for RCTs and case control studies by two reviewers using MeSH Terms. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle–Ottawa assessment scale. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean long-term survival difference of both materials at two different periods (≤24, ≥36 months(m)). Mean differences in biologic, technical and esthetical complications of partial vs. full crown reconstructions were analyzed using software package R (p < 0.05). 28 studies included in the systematic review and 25 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rate was 99% (0.95–1.00, ≤24 m) and dropped to 95% (0.87–0.98, ≥36 m), while the overall success ratio was 88% (0.54–0.98; ≤24 m) vs. 77% (0.62–0.88; ≥36 m). No significance, neither for the follow-up time points, nor for biologic, technical and esthetical (88% vs. 77%; 90% vs. 74%; 96% vs. 95%) outcomes was overserved. A significance was found for the technical/clinical performance between full 93% (0.88–0.96) and partial 64% (0.34–0.86) crowns. The biologic success rate of partial crowns with 69% (0.42–0.87) was lower, but not significant compared to 91% (0.79–0.97) of full crowns. The esthetical success rate of partial crowns with 90% (0.65–0.98) was lower, but not significant compared to 99% (0.92–1.00) of full crowns.